These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Odyssey] Tech 1 Battleships - Caldari

First post First post
Author
Tilo Rhywald
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#281 - 2013-04-10 18:45:29 UTC
Deacon Abox wrote:

More comedy gold itt. Lol

Do you seriously think that alliance tournament usage is indicative of in-game balance? Do you not understand point allocation per team and point cost in that artificial combat context? Does all eve combat involve a defined "arena" and limits on numbers or types of ships? Tell me how a ship that is currently tops on eve-kill is going to die off with this 1% nerf. Did you only read this thread and failed to notice that the Abaddon is similarly adjusted? Or, do you think that somehow the Rokh alone should be exempted from an overall adjustment of resist bonuses to 4% per level?

The whole point with the resist bonus adjustment is that now a level 5 ship skill will provide a 20% instead of 25% omni-resist buff, which will still be about the best bonus any ship can get. I don't think, and more importantly the devs don't think this will kill off Rokh usage and instead will bring more balance. And in that they will be correct.


You're wrong in all of your conclusions. Don't read too much into a simple statement. I said "better" indicator, not "ideal". If you really need further explanation, it should be absolutely clear that I would only compare the usage of Rokhs vs other battleships in the tournament. Since you brought up the Abaddon: How many of those did we see in the last ATs? The only reason I didn't refer to the Abaddon is that you rarely see it in solo actions and even less with an active tank. To clarify: I'm against the nerf of the resistance bonus in general, and in case of the Rokh it is the most out of place.

Your Eve-Kill stats constitute exactly those huge nullsec fleets, nothing more, and thus they are in no way representative. This specific use of the ship won't die out due to the resistance nerf, agreed. But Rokh and Abaddon both will be hit in other scenarios, most of all in solo combat. I already wrote down the difference in active tank-ability of the proposed Rokh compared to the Maelstrom (at lv5). 10% is huge, especially with cap-using weapons.

Cheers
Tilo R.
Jaster Arcturus
Matari Exodus
#282 - 2013-04-10 18:53:32 UTC
Regarding the torp Raven in pvp:

Aside from the issues with damage application and the need to take up mid slots to get the most out of it, it would be useful if the torps themselves were reduced in size. Having a full "clip" in the launcher of only 20 missiles seems prohibitively small, at least in my solo/duo pvp experience. Furthermore, their size also limits the number of cap boosters you can carry when active tanking more than say projectile ammo for the maelstrom.

Summary: reduce the volume taken up by torps.

Apologies if this has been mentioned but I've looked through half of the thread and not seen it.
Octoven
Noir Holdings
#283 - 2013-04-10 18:59:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Octoven
CCP Rise wrote:
Heyo Caldari guys

Little update for you since I think I've posted in the other threads a bit more =)

I hate to do the soonTM thing, but Fozzie should be making a post soon (I'm not sure if that means today or tomorrow or what) about the Rokh/Abaddon resistance bonus tweak, so just watch for that.

I see a lot of discussion about large missiles overall. I can't give you guys a whole bunch of details right now, because honestly we don't have them quite pinned down yet, but I'll tell you two things now which will hopefully be encouraging: cruise missiles will get a buff (most likely related to their damage), and at least some of the work for battleship missiles will make it into Odyssey.

I know thats not as specific as you would want, but I hope its enough to hold you over until we pin down a few more things.

We're glad to hear you like the scorp change!



I like the idea of buffing the dmg, but I hope you arent planning to nerf the range as a balancing act. Granted cruise can fire further then a raven can target, but you can increase targeting range with mods, the only thing increasing your missile flight range is rigs. I'd rather keep my sniper raven. Unfortunately CCP has not only declared war on Tiers but also on the sniping role in general. Forcing ships that have sniped well in the past at 200+ to get down below 200. Why? Because the gunnery pilots feel its unfair.... >.> BS if you ask me.
Octoven
Noir Holdings
#284 - 2013-04-10 19:16:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Octoven
Sparkus Volundar wrote:
Dear CCP Rise,

I write to suggest putting a 7th mid on the Raven whilst leaving the Maelstrom essentially unchanged will be out of balance.

At Minmatar BS 5, The Meal will have a 37.5% Shield Boost amount bonus. If the Raven uses a Shield Boost Amp II in its 7th Mid, it will get a 36% Shield Boost amount bonus, which is almost identical (96% of the Meal bonus). With PVP fits, it's very unlikely that stacking penalties will apply and in PVE, Faction etc. versions of Amps come into play more easily.

In summary, I would suggest that proposing to give the Raven a 7th Mid slot and a smaller Sig Radius than the Maelstrom will be too much of a buff (or that the Maelstrom needs some additional boost to offset what seems to be the loss in value of it's tanking bonus).

(Cross-posted to Mini thread also)

Regards,
Sparks


Are you seriously comparing battleships from two different tiers? The Maelstrom has 8 guns too, the raven has 6 >.> I think its obvious your post is troll. The ships having identical tank is actually a good thing considering a mael can out DPS a raven. Additionally, I would point out that the raven is still losing a lot of its tank, the extra amplifier would only replace what it is losing. Your argument is irrelevant.
Sal Landry
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#285 - 2013-04-10 19:23:40 UTC
Octoven wrote:

Are you seriously comparing battleships from two different tiers?
...
Your argument is irrelevant.

Have you heard of this thing called tiericide?
Naomi Knight
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#286 - 2013-04-10 19:36:40 UTC
Sal Landry wrote:
Octoven wrote:

Are you seriously comparing battleships from two different tiers?
...
Your argument is irrelevant.

Have you heard of this thing called tiericide?

have you heard that there will be attack battleships and combat battleships ?
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
Brave Collective
#287 - 2013-04-10 19:37:41 UTC  |  Edited by: elitatwo
Octoven wrote:
Sparkus Volundar wrote:
Dear CCP Rise,

I write to suggest putting a 7th mid on the Raven whilst leaving the Maelstrom essentially unchanged will be out of balance.

At Minmatar BS 5, The Meal will have a 37.5% Shield Boost amount bonus. If the Raven uses a Shield Boost Amp II in its 7th Mid, it will get a 36% Shield Boost amount bonus, which is almost identical (96% of the Meal bonus). With PVP fits, it's very unlikely that stacking penalties will apply and in PVE, Faction etc. versions of Amps come into play more easily.

In summary, I would suggest that proposing to give the Raven a 7th Mid slot and a smaller Sig Radius than the Maelstrom will be too much of a buff (or that the Maelstrom needs some additional boost to offset what seems to be the loss in value of it's tanking bonus).

(Cross-posted to Mini thread also)

Regards,
Sparks


Are you seriously comparing battleships from two different tiers? The Maelstrom has 8 guns too, the raven has 6 >.> I think its obvious your post is troll. The ships having identical tank is actually a good thing considering a mael can out DPS a raven. Additionally, I would point out that the raven is still losing a lot of its tank, the extra amplifier would only replace what it is losing. Your argument is irrelevant.


Any cruiser out dps a Raven and sink it, you don't need any larger boats to to that. Whenever you see a Raven on the grid you see a free killmail - that is the problem with that boat.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

Octoven
Noir Holdings
#288 - 2013-04-10 19:53:10 UTC
elitatwo wrote:
Octoven wrote:
Sparkus Volundar wrote:
Dear CCP Rise,

I write to suggest putting a 7th mid on the Raven whilst leaving the Maelstrom essentially unchanged will be out of balance.

At Minmatar BS 5, The Meal will have a 37.5% Shield Boost amount bonus. If the Raven uses a Shield Boost Amp II in its 7th Mid, it will get a 36% Shield Boost amount bonus, which is almost identical (96% of the Meal bonus). With PVP fits, it's very unlikely that stacking penalties will apply and in PVE, Faction etc. versions of Amps come into play more easily.

In summary, I would suggest that proposing to give the Raven a 7th Mid slot and a smaller Sig Radius than the Maelstrom will be too much of a buff (or that the Maelstrom needs some additional boost to offset what seems to be the loss in value of it's tanking bonus).

(Cross-posted to Mini thread also)

Regards,
Sparks


Are you seriously comparing battleships from two different tiers? The Maelstrom has 8 guns too, the raven has 6 >.> I think its obvious your post is troll. The ships having identical tank is actually a good thing considering a mael can out DPS a raven. Additionally, I would point out that the raven is still losing a lot of its tank, the extra amplifier would only replace what it is losing. Your argument is irrelevant.


Any cruiser out dps a Raven and sink it, you don't need any larger boats to to that. Whenever you see a Raven on the grid you see a free killmail - that is the problem with that boat.


You will not get any argument from me on that front, but comparing it to a ship that is in a completely different tier is kinda stupid even with tiericide. The Mael and Raven arent supposed to be balanced to each other any more then a rokh and a raven. They have different roles. the Raven is going to be the Attack class and Mael Combat.
Warde Guildencrantz
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#289 - 2013-04-10 20:03:39 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Updated OP to reflect a couple small changes based on player feedback!
Scorpion is going to lose a high slot and gain a low slot.


THERE we go.

Now i like everything.

TunDraGon ~ Low sec piracy since 2003 ~ Youtube ~ Join Us

Nightfox BloodRaven
SQUIDS.
#290 - 2013-04-10 20:31:10 UTC
Low slot for scoprion opens up a lot of new options so its a great.!

But i am worries about the price cost.. I love the scorption cuz i can afford to fly it regularly at 90-100mil per hull... now given that the production materials will be adjusted i hope you guys will keep in mind that scorpion is a limited role ship... if it cost like 200-230mil to fly it (Tier 3 BS costs) --- i am afraid no one will fly it over the blackbird or the falcon...since 200mil -230mil for a ecm boat... seems to damn pricey... so hopefully scorpion pricey remain close to the 90-100mil range...
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#291 - 2013-04-10 20:39:03 UTC
*looks at Rokh and Scorpion, remembers hopes and dreams for obvious and delightful buffs and changes*

*sees nerf and feels heart break and dreams shatter*

Why y no love caldari, CCP? Why? Q_Q
DragonZer0
Zebra Corp
Goonswarm Federation
#292 - 2013-04-10 20:44:56 UTC
Finally the raven ****** pg is fixed oh thank the heaves. Scrop need abit more armor as it ecm based ship. But caldari are looking better now.
Gnoshia
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#293 - 2013-04-10 21:48:26 UTC
Those missile buffs better be outstanding because as it stands, the Raven is probably going to be one of the worst battleships after these changes go live.

After all this s*** heave missiles users had to put up with this year you could atleast redeem yourselves by showing the Raven some substantial love.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#294 - 2013-04-10 21:53:49 UTC
Gnoshia wrote:
Those missile buffs better be outstanding because as it stands, the Raven is probably going to be one of the worst battleships after these changes go live.

After all this s*** heave missiles users had to put up with this year you could atleast redeem yourselves by showing the Raven some substantial love.

I have to agree with this. While I'm on board with what has been done with medium sized missiles, large missiles have needed serious work for some time... and the Raven overall has suffered for far too long.

Good steps with the Scorpion, although I'm not convinced it's 100% where it needs to be yet.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
Brave Collective
#295 - 2013-04-10 22:01:49 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
...

I have to agree with this. While I'm on board with what has been done with medium sized missiles, large missiles have needed serious work for some time... and the Raven overall has suffered for far too long.
...


Six years and five months...

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

Alexa Coates
Coalition Of Misfits
#296 - 2013-04-10 22:35:17 UTC
I see the scorp is still useless to everyone except people in null

gg.

That's a Templar, an Amarr fighter used by carriers.

Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
#297 - 2013-04-10 23:04:37 UTC
Just noticed the drone stats on the raven 50m3 bay 75mbit bandwidth. Is this a typo? I just can't imagine how all that bandwidth could be used up, unless I am missing something, I am not that heavy a drone user so I may be wrong.

Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction...

Octoven
Noir Holdings
#298 - 2013-04-10 23:30:15 UTC
I like how the trade off of the HS for another LS is being made on the scorpion. That ship needed something done to help boost the tank on it. Its stats are in shields not armor but its tank is in lows not mids. I suppose the structure tanking could be useful for solo pvp but fleets will have to sacrifice some HP like about...2K in order to trade off for an armor tank. However, in fleets you also can use logies to more then make up for the loss in tanking preferences. The logi pilots wont be happy...but few ever are.

The Scorpion is shaping up nicely, the raven ehh not sure about that one, it certainly has the capability of damage, but the missile systems being re-balanced will help reflect that more. Torps is where we are wanting to take the raven. Too long it has only been used as a PVE ship and adding high dmg weaps will certainly help with using it as a pvp ship. However, cruise missiles shouldnt lose as much range either. The raven thrives on range being used as a sniper. The issue here is that currently the raven is a heavy snipe boat. Missiles have often been associtaed with extreme ranges too. However, you are reclassing the ship to be a "up in your face brawler with torps". This is a fine concept, but we don't want to sacrifice the effectiveness of sniping. The Rokh can snipe but out to about 160ish...the raven puts it to shame at 250.

Grunnax Aurelius
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#299 - 2013-04-10 23:52:40 UTC
Caldari as you know are the most advanced race when it comes to Shield and Missile systems, now what i find odd is that the Typhoon has a skill bonus that affects the way damage is applied by missiles, when this would clearly be a Caldari thing. I suggest giving the Typhoon a 5% bonus to Target Painter effectiveness per level or 5% bonus to Stasis Webifier propultion jam strength per level as that is the Minmatar's area of expertise, it will make taking on Battlecruisers easier than having a Explosion Velocity bonus.

This is the Raven and the Typhoon, the Raven is supposed to be a Kitting Missile Ship, and the Typhoon a Brawling Missile Ship.

Raven
Caldari Battleship Skill Bonuses:
+5% bonus to Cruise and Torpedo Launcher rate of fire
+10% bonus to Cruise Missile Torpedo Velocity
Slot layout: 7H, 7M, 5L; 0 turrets , 6 launchers

Typhoon
Minmatar Battleship Skill Bonuses:
+5% to Cruise and Torpedo launcher rate of fire
+5% Cruise Missile and Torpedo explosion velocity
Slot layout: 7H, 5M, 7L; 5 turrets , 6 launchers

What I propose is that the Raven replaces its +10% bonus to Cruise Missile Torpedo Velocity per level, for the +5% Cruise Missile and Torpedo explosion velocity per level. This would notion that the Raven should be Cruise Missile fitted and apply its damage easier as well as the Typhoon. CCP Rise did confirm that Cruise Missiles are getting a revamp and increased damage so Cruise Missiles wont be a bad choice anymore making this change extremely relevant and being a Kitting designed ship it should notion fitting Cruise Missiles. Also it should be given 1 more Launcher slot to help compensate for damage, but this eaxtra launcher point will depend on the changes to Cruise Missiles.
The Typhoon replaces its +5% Cruise Missile and Torpedo explosion velocity per level with either a 5% bonus to Target Painter effectiveness per level or a 5% bonus to Stasis Webifier effectiveness per level. Both these bonuses help Torpedo's on applying easier damage to target. I would personally like a Target Painter bonus but thats just me.

These changes bring both ships into a really nice category and don't conflict with each other as much in terms of arguments of one being better than the other.

CCP Rise please take this into consideration, they are not game breaking changes, they just small changes that bring both ships into line with each other with the defining feature of one being a brawling torpedo boat and one being a kitting cruise missile boat.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=342042&find=unread

StrongSmartSexy
Phenix Revolution
#300 - 2013-04-11 01:04:26 UTC  |  Edited by: StrongSmartSexy
Yeah, Raven's missile velocity bonus should be changed to something useful for easier damage application much like the revamped typhoon.
Disregarding the abomination of Rage torpedoes' explosion radius, a TP bonus on any missile boat is a little outdated (with the new explosion radius reduction change) and less effective than a stasis web effectiveness bonus when trying to increase damage application against battleship sized targets.

I'd prefer a stasis web bonus as it would be much more useful than an explosion velocity or target painter bonus. If there are concerns about imbalance, such a bonus could be tweaked to have less effectiveness per level than Serpentis/Marauder ships e.g. 5-7.5% webbing effectiveness per level.